Chinese name: Li Qing
Nationality: China
Birthplace: Guiyang County
Date of birth: 1978
Occupation: Businessman
Profile
Li Qing's hometown is Zengyuan Village, Ouyang Hai Township, Guiyang County. At the age of 16, she ended her four-year farming life and went to work in the city. In the next 16 years, he fell in love, got married, did business, went to other places, and finally settled in Chenzhou city. He did business in Majiaping and Fumin Market in Chenzhou successively.
Distribution of counterfeit goods
In August p>21, Li Qing, a farmer from Guiyang County, Hunan Province, started a clothing business with the help of relatives and friends. He rented a shop in Fumin Market in Chenzhou City to deal in sweaters. In the meantime, through purchasing channels, Li Qing ordered a batch of sweaters in a small workshop in Tongxiang City, Zhejiang Province, including counterfeit sweaters of brands such as Erdos and Hengyuanxiang.
making chain
since June p>21, Li Qing has successively purchased so-called "white shirts" from Tongxiang Huang Luying and Huang Qiuying, which are sweaters produced by small factories in Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces without any trademark. The price of each sweater ranges from 25 yuan to 75 yuan, and he has successively purchased about 26, pieces. These "white shirts" were not directly sent back to Chenzhou. Li Qing found Zhou Jinzhu, who is three years older than him, and asked him to turn the "white blouse" into a famous brand.
Zhou Jinzhu doesn't make trademark logos himself. He contacted an Anhui native named "Azhong" to buy various trademark logos. In Ah Zhong's hands, a set of Ordos trademark 4.5 yuan, Hengyuanxiang and Mengtejiao trademarks are one of 3.5 yuan. Zhou Jinzhu transferred the trademark to Li Qingshi, and the price of each set was increased accordingly. Each set of "Erdos" was 5 yuan, each set of "Hengyuanxiang" was from 3.8 yuan to 4 yuan, and "Mengtejiao" was fixed as each set of 4 yuan. Under the contact of Zhou Jinzhu, a man named Lu Jinfei sewed the trademark logo on the "white blouse" for Li Qing, and each set of 1.5 yuan. After completing all the production processes, the fake "Erdos" sweater was shipped from Zhejiang and shipped to Chenzhou.
Arrested and punished
On December 15th, 21, Ordos police, with the cooperation of local police, arrested Li Qing and others. The place where the case was committed was Chenzhou, which was an inter-provincial arrest.
The Ordos Intermediate People's Court believes that the basis of the police is a notice from the Economic Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security. A notice issued on February 21, 21 stated that, on the premise that the public security organs in the main crime areas have no objection, the Economic Investigation Detachment of Ordos Public Security Bureau will investigate and deal with criminal cases suspected of counterfeiting the "Ordos" trademark registered by Ordos Group according to law.
The Erdos Intermediate People's Court found that the police detained 4,351 counterfeit "Erdos" sweaters with a tag price of 2,18 yuan each in Li Qing's store, 17,43 counterfeit "Erdos" sweaters with a tag price of 1,68 yuan each, and 4,433 counterfeit "Hengyuanxiang" sweaters with a tag price of 968 yuan each. The price tag of more than 43 million was identified by the court as "illegal business amount". In the end, Li Qing was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined 21.51 million yuan.
Appeal
Regarding this verdict, Li Qing's defender, Wang Fukui, a lawyer of Inner Mongolia Xinguang Law Firm, said that the price of this tag was ten times higher than the average market price. It submitted Li Qing's sales CD to the court, which recorded that the prices of Erdos sweaters sold by Li Qing were 1 yuan, 12 yuan and 15 yuan respectively, and the average price of Li Qing's online sales was 147.54 yuan. Wang Fukui's defense opinion was not adopted by Ordos Intermediate People's Court. The court held that the actual sales amount of infringing goods could not be ascertained, so the "tag price" was applied.
Wang Fukui said that "all the counterfeiting procedures have been completed in Tongxiang", and Li Qing only sells, so she should not be sentenced for counterfeiting registered trademarks, but should be convicted for selling goods with counterfeit trademarks. Moreover, because some goods are not sold, there is an "attempted crime" and should be given a lighter punishment. Wang Fukui said that from the current situation, in the past four months, Li Qing only sold more than 4 pieces, and the total sales amount was only 6, yuan, and the profit was about 1, yuan. It was not appropriate to be fined 21.51 million yuan. At present, the case has been appealed to the Inner Mongolia High Court.
The judgment was revoked
In mid-December p>211, one year after Li Qing was brought to justice, the case broke out with a "sky-high fine", which aroused public concern and won him a lot of sympathy. On the evening of December 27th, 211, Li Qing's wife, Li Hongying, said that the Inner Mongolia High Court had revoked the first-instance judgment of the Erdos Intermediate Court on Li Qing's case on the grounds of "unclear facts and insufficient evidence" and sent it back for retrial.
Reiterating the Judgment
After the judgment of the first instance in p>211, the defendant Li Qing appealed to the Inner Mongolia Higher People's Court. In December 211, Inner Mongolia High Court sent the case back to Ordos Intermediate Court for retrial on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient evidence.
At noon on May 18th, 212, Wang Fukui, the defense lawyer of the defendant Li Qing, received the retrial judgment mailed by Ordos Intermediate People's Court. Compared with the controversial one last year, the verdict has changed greatly: Li Qing's crime has not changed, and she is still guilty of counterfeiting a registered trademark. The sentencing has been reduced from five years to four and a half years, while the fine has changed from 21.51 million yuan to 1.991859 yuan. Even so, Li Qing still can't accept such a judgment. First, 1.99 million yuan is still unable to pay; Second, there are still differences on the key issues of the case.